swansont

I can find the mass of something using a balance, and volume doesn't enter into the process. If it's more dense than water, I can find the volume by how much water it displaces, which doesn't directly depend on the mass. The ratio of those two values gives me the density, because density is define as that ratio. If by this you mean you need to have a volume as a standard, yes, that's true. It's true of all measurement; it's not like volume is unique in this way.

I think pretty much everything is wrong in what you said in that post.

No, but that's not necessary. Physics says so, and that is sufficient. It's supposed to be taken as understood, at least by people who understand the physics involved.

! Moderator Note It seems to be too much to ask that you stay on-topic (in this case, there is no discussion of space in the OP, simply a matter of a bicycle). So: trashcan it is!

It's not anywhere close to the same thing. One makes sense mathematically, and the other does not.

It stays stretched. To change would violate conservation of energy.

So are frictionless surfaces and scenarios that lack air resistance, and Newton spheres, which you have invoked more than once, but that doesn't stop us from doing a gedanken experiment. The physics still works. Ah, be careful. Time dilation may be defined this way under a particular set of assumptions such as having a spherical body of mass m, but one can't apply that in a situation where the assumptions don't apply. A. YOU provided the GR equation to me, in the Relativistic Gravitational Potential and its Relation to Mass-Energy link. Don't get pissy because you don't like the answer. If you think my math is bad, you go ahead and integrate the equation for constant acceleration. Do you get a different answer? (if so, then we can discuss bad math) B. You have no idea what my motivations are. It is a mistake to think that you do.

! Moderator Note From our “guidelines for posting in speculations” You must also know the terminology. You can't effectively communicate if you are using different definitions than everyone else IOW, this will not fly

If a = d(phi)/dr, we can integrate for a constant a and see that the change in potential is simply ar, or, as I wrote earlier, gh. So it seems my equation is a GR equation after all. That would seem to remove your objection to the fact that time dilation will happen in a region of constant g

! Moderator Note Threads merged; one per topic please. Also note that this is a discussion site and not your blog It’s not a physical process. It’s an issue of which model you use, quantum mechanics or classical electrodynamics. One should use the one best-suited to the situation being investigated

Long in this context is anything bigger than ~1 micron, i.e. non-ionizing.

! Moderator Note Moved

No, we can’t create an infinite energy source

An article that describes entanglement as “a change to one particle always affects its partner in a particular way” is not to be trusted to get anything right.

Other than a modifier for nuts, I don’t know what “Deez” refers to.

! Moderator Note You've brought this up before, as I recall. It's off-topic for this discussion, and any information relevant to the OP should be supported.

The US, apparently. Several states have recently passed or proposed laws to make it harder to protest. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/20/florida-anti-riot-bill-desantis/

PSA: Links to details are a good thing to include https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-s-perseverance-mars-rover-extracts-first-oxygen-from-red-planet Interesting that breathing isn't the primary demand regarding oxygen production, it's to burn the rocket fuel. "Getting four astronauts off the Martian surface on a future mission would require approximately 15,000 pounds (7 metric tons) of rocket fuel and 55,000 pounds (25 metric tons) of oxygen. In contrast, astronauts living and working on Mars would require far less oxygen to breathe. “The astronauts who spend a year on the surface will maybe use one metric ton between them,” Hecht said."

! Moderator Note We are not going to entertain nonsense about how these incidents were fake, especially given that you've admitted that there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. This is not a conspiracy discussion board; the topic was censorship in the context of conspiracy theories infringed on anybody's rights. And I am well within my authority as a mod to tell you this. (i.e. your rights have not even come close to being violated)

"Whistle-blower" has an official designation (in the US, at least) "On the simplest level, a whistleblower is someone who reports waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, or dangers to public health and safety to someone who is in the position to rectify the wrongdoing." (emphasis added) https://www.whistleblowers.org/what-is-a-whistleblower/ i.e. they report incidents and infractions to someone within the system. Leaking to the press and outside world is not whistleblowing. In the US, they are supposed to be afforded legal protection from retaliation from reporting on the organization for whom they work. Neither Snowden nor Assange are whistle-blowers. Assange wasn't even inside of the system, and only received information from leakers, so he's not even a whistle-blower by any relaxed, lay definition of the term. If you want to discuss leaking private/classified information, then call it what it is.

How would that help you remember which angle is which?

Bill McC has been suspended for soapboxing. So...much...soapboxing (the fact that many of the unsupported claims can’t be supported owing to being utterly wrong is not a loophole)

So you made an irrelevant comment based on a lack of understanding of relativity, and still thinking it casts doubt on the theory. Got it. (for the record, the m in E=mc^2 is not the mass of the explosive itself. Feel free to ask questions if you want to diminish your ignorance) In science we use science definitions, not lay definitions.

“There is a common belief that corporate directors have a legal duty to maximize corporate profits and “shareholder value” — even if this means skirting ethical rules, damaging the environment or harming employees.” Still a different argument, as these are extra conditions, but no need to continue; the legal obligation is a more vague duty to work in the best interest of the company, rather than personal interest, and do due diligence to make informed decisions.

This is irrelevant to the discussion, yes?